Our National Malinvestment In President Obama Will Bring Painful Consequences

Forbes ^ | 11/16/2012 | Mark Spitznagel

[SeekAndFind]

The choice for the status quo made in last week’s presidential election was an uninformed one—at no fault of the voters—made in the fog of monetary distortion and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s continuous campaign of disinformation.

President Barack Obama managed to overtake Republican challenger Mitt Romney on the exit poll question “Who is better for the economy?” and a strong majority of Obama voters felt that the economy is better off than four years ago. Indeed, anyone (particularly Bernanke) would concede that without the Fed’s zero interest rate policy we would be experiencing a far worse economy—the true Obama-Keynesian economy.

The danger here, as we have seen in every other bust for a century or more, is that we can only suspend the laws of economics for so long. And in general we are only good at considering immediate consequences, while being very, very bad at considering later consequences. As 19th century French economist Frédéric Bastiat observed, “The bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.”

In the short run (and this is what is so insidious about the Fed’s artificially low interest rates), all we are seeing is an illusion of economic progress. Specifically, the Fed has manufactured a distortion intended to trap both consumers into spending more and entrepreneurs into investing more, or lengthening their production periods (becoming more “roundabout,” as the Austrian School economists said), as if savings were more plentiful. This combination would never occur in an unhampered, noninterventionist economy for the simple fact that higher consumption would mean higher interest rates (from less savings), which would discourage longer production.

[SeekAndFind]

Thus, investment in this illusory economy is malinvestment, or investment that always unravels with the intervention’s inevitable end, due to either untenable credit levels (such as today’s corporate debt-to-asset ratio, still at historic highs) or a resource crunch (rising commodity prices) that eliminates any advantage from printing money; and one or both of these scenarios is unavoidable.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST....

[South40]

At no fault of the voters? BS.

[rurgan]

People don't understand how the economy works.

With the exponential increase in technology our production and hence our incomes, living standards and job opportunities etc. should have correspondingly skyrocketed as technology advancement has. Technology has increased by how many times? So should our incomes have increased. But our incomes have declined, 47 million on foodstamps, 70 million on medicaid, 6 trillion dollar debt etc. Yet many stupid liberals voted for this Obama communist who will only make it worse when it should be getting much better as tech is rising. Additionally we in the U.S.A. have the most oil, oil shale, natural gas, wood, minerals, coal , etc ( in other words we should all be millionaires instead of beggars and working for $8 an hour which we many of us are)

It is because of government regulations that are hurting businesses ability to make profits, to hire , and expand to

[StopGlobalWhining]

This is exactly what Obama wants. People just can’t bring themselves to believe that their president would actually want their economy to collapse and bankrupt millions of Americans.

What did they think when he said that his election would totally transform the American system?